Just got back from Disneyland Paris and quite frankly our family had a great time (don't start about wasting time in France for Disneyland...it was fun).<BR><BR>One small problem, though. Unlike the parks in America which take public health into consideration; Disneyland Paris allows smoking everywhere and boy oh boy was it disgusting and unhealthy to wait on queues while these clowns insisted on lighting up their cancer sticks and have this carcinogenic crap blow right into our lungs.<BR><BR>Why don't they ban smoking in Disneyland Paris except designated areas to protect the health and well being of its customers?

lets just leave this one alone shall we?

because unlike the americans the europeans do not care if others die from smoking. It is a personal choice and the powers to be have left this issue alone. Yes, the europeans smoke like chimneys everywhere...regardless of the consequences...and don't even think of asking someone to put it out...it is simple not done. As I reside in Germany, I am pretty much used to this but I don't patronize clubs or the local Irish pub because I can not breathe from the smoke.<BR>MH

Hi,<BR><BR>I've been to Paris Disneyland twice (2000 and a couple of months ago). Actually, they do not allow smoking everywhere. At least two restaurants that I've frequented there have non-smoking sections. Also, I believe (though I wouldn't swear on it), there is a rule of no smoking in the queues. However, since European social attitudes about smoking are much different from those of many Americans, many people light up anyway, just as they do in metro stations and other places that are "officially" non-smoking.<BR><BR>In other words, actually there are many non-smoking rules and legislation in Europe. Whether or not they are enforced is another matter! <BR><BR>I don't like it any better than you do and simply try my best to ignore it (and it's extremely hard, I know!).<BR><BR>Jennifer

Probably because Europeans have better priorities and usually don't share the American "I want to live forever" mantra.<BR><BR>More Europeans continue to smoke more cigarettes than Americans and still manage to outlive them.<BR><BR>Give this topic a rest... You don't get to set the way the world works.

xxxx is probably one of theose priggy Americans who make nasty faces (or worse cause a scene) every time they encounter a smoker in Europe. <BR><BR>Smoke isn't always pleasant but it is legal and you are in their country. Give it a rest for crying out loud.

<BR>whenever you are around a smoker, fart. and fart a lot. the smoker should not mind at all. they should be able to tolerate your farting as they expect you to tolerate their smoke. like smoking, farting isn't always pleasant but it is legal.

Oh, sbd... you are banned to the ninth circle of hell for the use of sad, irrelevant and stupid arguments.<BR><BR>Let this rest. Fortunately Europe is not like the US.<BR><BR>And, for the record, farting is always pleasurable (for the farter, maybe not for the fartee)

<BR>it is very relevant. like smoking, it is something that has been around a long time, does not affect anyone else's health, and is perfectly legal. some may consider it rude and uncouth but, as with smoking, we are always told that the issue is legality, not rudeness. it is something that some people do not like to smell but if they do not like it then, like non-smokers are always told to do, they should just go someplace else where they do not have to be exposed to it. <BR><BR>it is a very appropriate analogy. <BR><BR>

sbd<BR><BR>Appropriate and funny!

I assume that it was outside those people were smoking? So they were hardly puffing it into your lungs, they were puffing it into air. Really, if something like that bothers you so much, it is best that you just stay home where – let me guess –NOBODY smokes. Americans seem to be really uptight and arrogant people.

Home<BR><BR>There you go projecting again.

Home Boy<BR><BR>You must learn not to reveal so much about yourself in your notes. No mystery to you Home Boy.

I stopped smoking cigarettes years ago and I'm glad about that, but why do so many of us Americans think we can dictate our petty whims to other people. Seems like we are misusing the wonderful freedoms we have when we think we can deny others their own choices.<BR><BR>BTW, recent studies showing that secondary smoke is not unhealthy were published in Europe, but the press in the U.S. decided not to publish that info. The smoke is not hurting you. Suck it up.

George<BR><BR>Could you give us a link to those articles on secondary smoke so we can read them ourselves. Thanks..

<BR>farts do not hurt you either. so if someone near you is farting a lot, do not whine or make faces or think they are rude. most of all do not try to dictate your uptight, arrogant, and petty whims to them. just buck up. <BR><BR>

Journal of the American Medical Association article: Even a Little Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous<BR><BR>http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286.../jed10040.html <BR><BR>The tobacco industry's efforts to slow the spread of smoke-free environments has included a systematic effort to attempt to undermine the scientific evidence that passive smoking causes disease. (see footnotes 6-8) <BR><BR><BR><BR>Washington Post article: Other Studies Support EPA on Secondhand Smoke<BR><BR>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/secondhand072098.htm<BR><BR>More than 100 major studies in the past 13 years have examined health consequences of passive smoking, and most -- about 63 percent -- found evidence of harm, from respiratory problems to cancer, according to a literature review published in May in the Journal of the American Medical Association.<BR><BR>Of the reports that were inconclusive or found no health effects, nearly three-quarters were written by scientists funded by cigarette companies, the JAMA article said. In fact, it said, the evidence "suggests that the tobacco industry may be attempting to influence scientific opinion by flooding the scientific literature with large numbers of review articles supporting its position."<BR><BR><BR><BR>

A Wall Street Journal Europe article on the most complete study on second hand smoke can be found here:<BR><BR>http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm<BR><BR>The complete study is here:<BR><BR>http://207.102.150.158/2/12/1440.pdf

That Wall Street Journal article is dated March 12, 1998.<BR><BR>It says this: However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 LUNG-CANCER patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. <BR><BR><BR>The Washington Post article is dated a few months later, July 20, 1998, and addresses this CANCER ONLY study.<BR><BR>But while the case against secondhand smoke continues to build, proving the cancer link remains problematic. That's partly because of the uncertainties inherent in epidemiological research, weaknesses that make it difficult to prove that ANYTHING causes cancer, even smoking itself.<BR><BR>Some independent studies continue to find no statistically significant connection between passive smoke and cancer, including a report this year by the International Agency for Research in Cancer, a study funded by the World Health Organization and immediately championed by the tobacco industry.<BR><BR>But cancer risks aside, there's solid evidence linking environmental smoke to serious respiratory illnesses, especially in children. Those alone are sufficient to warrant policies curbing smoking in restaurants and other public places, longtime veterans of the tobacco wars say.<BR><BR>"The tobacco industry focuses on cancer because it's always harder to prove," said Philip Schiliro, staff director for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). "But what is absolutely undisputed is the impact secondhand smoke has on the respiratory system, especially with kids. With them, there's not a latency period of 40 years before you see the effects. You see it the next day." <BR><BR>

"The tobacco industry focuses on cancer because it's always harder to prove," said Philip Schiliro, staff director for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). "But what is absolutely undisputed is the impact secondhand smoke has on the respiratory system, especially with kids. With them, there's not a latency period of 40 years before you see the effects. You see it the next day." <BR><BR>I am sure Mr. Schiliro is a qualified scientist to make that remark (and a Democrat, too).<BR><BR>Agendas are a funny thing, aren't they?<BR><BR>May I suggest the following link?<BR><BR>http://www.davehitt.com/facts/<BR><BR>It is one of the best written pieces on SHS that I have seen. The guy is thorough.